It's time for a vote of greater independence

Page Tools

Thirteen million Australians will decide tomorrow who will have
the privilege of governing in the name of all Australians, of
divining the prudent course for this nation's future while
deriving, as America's founding fathers so eloquently prescribed,
"their just powers from the consent of the governed". Elections
mark a nation's changing times. This election marks change for us,
the Herald. There comes a time when a newspaper, having
expressed its voting preference for more than 170 years, as has the
Herald, must renew and reassess its claim on independence so
that its pursuit of truth is not only free of partisanship and
without fear or favour, but is seen to be so. From today, the
Herald no longer will endorse a political party.

The Herald's first editorial, published on April 18,
1831, gave this undertaking: "Our editorial management shall be
conducted upon principles of candour, honesty and honour. We have
no wish to mislead; no interest to gratify by unsparing abuse or
indiscriminate approbation." That pledge is honoured today.

This newspaper has endorsed one of the political parties in an
editorial before each election, with few exceptions. We have done
so without believing that we have undermined our deep-rooted
principles of independence, or the two broad themes that have
guided Herald advocacy over generations: market
libertarianism and social liberalism. And it is true the
Herald has endorsed Labor federally three times - in 1961,
1984 and 1987 - and once in a state election - in 2003. On some
occasions at least, many Herald readers would have seen
Labor as clearly superior. The newspaper did not endorse federal
Labor in the first 60 years of Federation mainly because the
party's economic policies were unsuitable. At other times
endorsement was denied for reasons less admirable.

But when we have endorsed one side or the other, nothing has
dented our subsequent determination to confront that party when we
believed it erred by action or omission. We recognise, however,
that expressing a preference for one party in an election will
taint us in the eyes of some readers; that they will think that if
we are partisan at election time, then we will be partisan at other
times. Our contract with readers is too precious to run that
risk.

Neither newspapers nor political parties have attitudes set in
stone. Both evolve to meet changing aspirations, circumstances and
tastes in the world they reflect. Labor, founded in part on a
belief in the White Australia policy, modernised its economic
policies in the 1980s. John Howard's Liberals are more diverse than
were Robert Menzies'. Old trade protectionists from the first
decades of Federation don't rate a mention in either party today.
Likewise, the newspaper is unrecognisable alongside our foundation
edition.

Our decision to no longer endorse one party or another at
election time is not a judgement about any party offering itself
for election in 2004. However, to build an even stronger,
unequivocally independent voice, we need to strike out on a new
course.

This is not an exercise in fence-sitting, a pastime that risks
its own injuries. We do not adopt this course because of an
inability to choose between the Howard or Latham offerings. Their
consumer promises may look similar; their underlying patents are
not. Some will mourn the passing of such a lengthy tradition;
others will argue it is one which belonged to an era of newspaper
barons courting patronage. We are realistic enough, too, to know
the policy may not hold forever. A truly awful government of any
colour, for example, would bring reappraisal.

Voters in this campaign have been bombarded with spending
promises on a scale unseen in Australia. The unedifying auction for
votes entrenches cynicism. The Coalition and Labor have prosecuted
their claims to supremacy with, among other things, confusion,
scaremongering and deceit, and timetables intended to compound the
electoral effect of all three.

The Herald is not ignoring this spreading stain on the
democratic fabric. We will continue to offer forthright opinion -
without being merely opinionated - on issues that daily affect life
in this city, this state, this nation and the world. Over recent
weeks, the newspaper has intensified examination of the choices
confronting voters, particularly in our Blueprint series. We have
highlighted issues we regard as pertinent. Through reportage and
commentary, we have tried to distil the campaign so that readers
are better able to cut through the cacophony to its essence; so
that offerings of rival political camps are more coherent in their
reception than in their transmission.

We will continue rigorous scrutiny. When governments, federal
and state, demonstrate increasing intolerance of fearless advice,
and when public servants are pressed to tell government what
government wants to hear, independent scrutiny is more vital than
ever. By actively demonstrating our political independence, we will
rejuvenate our mandate to scrutinise, criticise, encourage,
censure, damn or endorse.

We do not rely on the argument that our readers are clever
enough to determine their own voting preferences, although that is
our firm belief. Our rationale is one of self-interest and, for
this, we do not apologise. We rank as our most valued asset our
reputation for integrity with readers. Independence from the
political contest is vital to that. Only by being truly nonpartisan
can we be seen to be genuinely unshackled in our determination to
pursue truth and to root out wrongdoing.

We must not only be independent of fear or favour, of being
captive to partisan politics, but, like justice, we must be seen to
be so.